Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

There is a passage in Liszt's "sonnetto 104 del petrarca" where the amount of quavers in the treble and bass measures do not add up. In it, there exists no annontation giving the indication of tuplets, fermatas, rubato, etc. This passage is not alone:

LisztChopinDebussySaint Saenz

... And more all seem to have passages in their respective repertoires that are, well, anomalous. I am beginning to believe that timing becomes fuzzy and is open to personal interperetation when music becomes very fast and complex. There are other possibilities. Either that, or all of my sheet music has bad editing! What do you think?

Please quote specific examples. I don't know of much music where the notation doesn't "add up" to what is indicated by the time signature. It's one of the basic rules of notation and the composers you mentioned certainly know what they are writing.

Do you mean something like in Chopin's Nocturne Op.9/1 where 22 RH quavers have to fit into 12 in LH in bar 4? Then, the score will normally indicate this to be so - you don't normally subdivide and count exactly when you actually play it.

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

Woah those are some good examples. This is exactly what I am referring to and I also think that the music is just supposed to flow. This means in other words that it the timing is flexible and thus, open to interpretation. I suppose one could get the exact numbers, though.

didyougethathing
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 545
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: pianoPupil

Woah those are some good examples. This is exactly what I am referring to and I also think that the music is just supposed to flow. This means in other words that it the timing is flexible and thus, open to interpretation. I suppose one could get the exact numbers, though.

Many times each tuplet, no matter how many notes is clearly indicated as in Chopin, but in later music, and even in Liszt sometimes the number is not included. I would say that you approach these both in the same way. When you do it just becomes a question of timing. Yes, passages like that don't need to be metronome perfect, but it needs to flow.

You need to practice passages like this hands separately and then "fit" the timing together within the hands. It's not as important to make sure it fits in a set amount of time, but it's important when you practice to know where you want the notes to fall each time.

At first I thought the OP was referring to when uneven amounts of notes within a measure are not marked in any way, thus the examples I gave. But it seems he or she is more generally curious about how to approach passages with uneven amounts of notes, marked or not.

Don't you think that they should have a tuplet number? It seems too lenient to leave out such a thing, which makes me think that the composers did not give the exact timing, in these petite passages only, much importance.

Don't you think that they should have a tuplet number? It seems too lenient to leave out such a thing, which makes me think that the composers did not give the exact timing, in these petite passages only, much importance.

Those are assumed to be triplets though, since they are the most common tuplet many times they are not marked.

In addition to this, how the greats wanted us to approach such a thing. It was not by mistake that they left the markings out. I still think they wanted other pianists to interpret those little passages, to create some signature and variation.

Don't you think that they should have a tuplet number? It seems too lenient to leave out such a thing, which makes me think that the composers did not give the exact timing, in these petite passages only, much importance.

Those are assumed to be triplets though, since they are the most common tuplet many times they are not marked.

didyougethathing
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 545
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: pianoPupil

In addition to this, how the greats wanted us to approach such a thing. It was not by mistake that they left the markings out. I still think they wanted other pianists to interpret those little passages, to create some signature and variation.

I actually thought your orginal question was something a bit different, which is why my examples were what they were. Both your examples show triplet rhythms. Triplets are a commonly accepted rhythm and many times not marked, or marked in the first measure they appear only.

It is such a common rhythm that the composers (or plublishers) deemed it obvious and didn't include the triplet marking.

The Chopin example is clearly 16th note triplets in 12/8 time; three 16th notes per one 8th note.

The Liszt example is straight 8th notes in the right hand, and 8th note triplets in the left. This would be apparent to an experienced player, or just someone that has seen a lot of sheet music. I understand what you're asking now, but the answer I think is "it should be obvious," especially with triplets.

I admit the Liszt passage is a tad confusing with the eighth note rests thrown in.

Don't you think that they should have a tuplet number? It seems too lenient to leave out such a thing, which makes me think that the composers did not give the exact timing, in these petite passages only, much importance.

You're making something out of nothing and looking for reasons where none are needed. The composer or editor just thought it was obvious and not necessary or it's a "mistake" but still obvious what was intended.

Officially the numbers 3/22/etc should be there... But for fairly complicated music (with a lot of notes in I mean), it becomes a problem for the editor to fit a bunch of notes in. In the Chopin example it would be a killer to write 6 "3" underneath, or even 2 "9" there... There's simply not too much room. So you probably need to blame the editor and the publisher for this, but otherwise it is rather obvious... Especially in these composers (and Ravel) where the beat is indicated, and thus everything else is... solvable...